NationStates Jolt Archive

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.


Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police HAD agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.

That sounds alot like the United States...

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html by the way.

Thanks for the update.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9456690#post9456690

The Brazilian man was actually a Sodomite from the biblical city of Sodom who could transform into a shapeshifting lizard, he is in league with George Bush and also is the best friend of Osama Bin Laden. We should have tracked him down years ago.

He was responsible for the Sodomizing of 234,000,000 people during The X War, a was waged between reptialian shapeshifters and fairy yagnish's, who are in league with Margeret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II, who are secretly Illuminati face-changers.

The Brazilian man was actually a Sodomite from the biblical city of Sodom who could transform into a shapeshifting lizard, he is in league with George Bush and also is the best friend of Osama Bin Laden. We should have tracked him down years ago.

He was responsible for the Sodomizing of 234,000,000 people during The X War, a was waged between reptialian shapeshifters and fairy yagnish's, who are in league with Margeret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II, who are secretly Illuminati face-changers.


New Favorite poster!

oh damn - that poor guy.

"The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper. "

clearly reality itself has been distorted to make the police-state and shoot-to-kill policies look bad. fucking liberal bias in the media.

This is most definitely not a "bump", I assure you.

good because it certainly doesn't look like a bump

perhaps it requires a snazzier title. like "cops are lying murderers" or something.

I really hope the policemen go down for murder.

Accidents happen, sometimes the police shoot an innocent man. When they do they get punished. I don't see why this particular shooting is so fascinating to the people on this forum.

I don't see why this particular shooting is so fascinating to the people on this forum.

because the idea of summary executions as policy is scary enough without the fact that they utterly screwed it up and then tried desperately to cover up just how incompetent they are, perhaps?

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.while I don't Justify the Killing, I still say the police (at the scene) did act properly with the information they had, that is different than saying the killing was Justified.

now as for your article...

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1677571.html

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube. Suspecious in and of itself. after all, Memogate was also "Obtained Secret Documents." the Validity of those documents will be tested in court... if they are admissible now that they were plastered on the internet and over the news.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect. here is where the mistake occurred. they Id'ed the wrong person. and set the tone for the elite officers.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The document said: "At some point near the bottom he is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat.

"Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification." The Surveillance team "Positively Identified" him as a Terrorist Bomber or a Posible Bomber. The Police got that information and reacted to it, when de Menezes entered the train at a run.

Now who is to blame? The officers for shooting what they were lead to believe was the bomber... or the officers who ID'd de Menezes as a bomber?

People on the other thread posted that the Police did not act properly, but now we see that the police was given Positive Infromation that happened to be wrong. and with the information they WERE GIVEN, I still hold that they acted properly.

tragically, but properly.

now my question... what happened with those three bullets that missed, Elite Firearms Officers missing at that range?

If he was a bomber he wouldn't have got up out of his seat and walked over to the Police to see what they wanted.

That sounds alot like the United States...
True, Waco and the Weaver debacle both come to mind.

Geeze, now, doesn't that make you feel a whole lot safer? Yeppers, police competence at its best! Now, apologists for the murder of a Brazilian citizen, do you have anything to say or will you finally admit that they made a blunder they should be punished for? Is a sensation of security worth giving police the power to act as judge, jury and executioner? By all means, defend their hideous actions now, why don't we?

I've just entered the perspective of Menezes. I have on a loose denim shirt and blue jeans. I'm walking to the subway, pick up a newspaper at the entrance, and hop on the descending escalator. I enter the subway, stroll towards the platform, and see my train about to take off. Picking up my pace I skirt towards it and make it through the closing doors in the nick of time.

That's when I hear "Stop! Police!" and see several men with guns running towards the door I just slipped through. I get up out of my seat to see what the commotion is, but am tackled by someone across from me in the car. The last thing I see is an automatic rifle pointed at me. And then lights out.
.
.
.
.
The Unmistakable Moral: Never run, ever. There just might be plainclothes officers tailing you who've mistaken you for an Arab terrorist and have decided to kill you if they see you running. So don't run, even if there's a good reason to.

I've just entered the perspective of Menezes. I have on a loose denim shirt and blue jeans. I'm walking to the subway, pick up a newspaper at the entrance, and hop on the descending escalator. I enter the subway, stroll towards the platform, and see my train about to take off. Picking up my pace I skirt towards it and make it through the closing doors in the nick of time.

That's when I hear "Stop! Police!" and see several men with guns running towards the door I just slipped through. I get up out of my seat to see what the commotion is, but am tackled by someone across from me in the car. The last thing I see is an automatic rifle pointed at me. And then lights out.
.
.
.
.
The Unmistakable Moral: Never run, ever. There just might be plainclothes officers tailing you who've mistaken you for an Arab terrorist and have decided to kill you if they see you running. So don't run, even if there's a good reason to.

Don't run
Don't vote
Don't stop
Don't think
Don't claim
Don't blame
Don't read the link...

(in falsetto) I'm feeling numb

The Unmistakable Moral: Never run, ever. There just might be plainclothes officers tailing you who've mistaken you for an Arab terrorist and have decided to kill you if they see you running. So don't run, even if there's a good reason to.

though be warned - not running just means that they will mistake you for a well trained terrorist.

moral: don't sit still or walk casually either.

I find it somewhat odd that none of the murder apologists that went to such niceties as calling a dead man a moron showed up here...

I find it somewhat odd that none of the murder apologists that went to such niceties as calling a dead man a moron showed up here...

yeah, the pro-torture-and-murder crowd seems to make themselves scarce pretty much every time reality intrudes on their idiotic statements. probably a cognitive dissonance defense mechanism.

I find it somewhat odd that none of the murder apologists that went to such niceties as calling a dead man a moron showed up here...
Murder Apologists? I know some people felt that the police took the correct actions with the infomation they were given. but they actually said that de Menezes deserved to die?

Murder Apologists? I know some people felt that the police took the correct actions with the infomation they were given. but they actually said that de Menezes deserved to die?

You've probably seen them insulting him yourself. And anyone that, on the face of hard evidence that an action that led to a death was a mistake, supports it, is an apologist for muder.

Murder Apologists? I know some people felt that the police took the correct actions with the infomation they were given. but they actually said that de Menezes deserved to die?

Originally posted by Ilek-Vaad

Hmmmmmmm...........man in a thick coat in the middle of summer with a bag, acting suspicious a day after four bombs were planted and four more were attempted, and then when the police stop him and ask for ID he runs.

This guy is surely up for a Darwin Award here.

IF I lived, visited or was even near a city where terrorists had been busy bombing, I would EXPECT the police to be a bit on edge, and I sure as hell would help them out any way I could, expired visa or no. What's the worst that can happen with an expired visa? Deportation, what normally happens in England when you have an expired visa? You pay a fine and renew it. You have to be an idiot to run from armed police a day after people were hurt and killed in subway bombings.

Fecking idiot.

I find it somewhat odd that none of the murder apologists that went to such niceties as calling a dead man a moron showed up here...

you also hafta realize. it's close to 1am in some parts in the US. and most of your "murder apologists" are asleep.

Me personally, i agree w/ what the guy said about the cops having someone ID the guy, but it was the wrong info and it being a tragic accident. I think that these guys who killed the wrong man have guilt enough that that should be their punishment. but i see you guys don't care about the other persons, and that mistakes DO happen.

W/ that, i'm going to bed. i hafta work tomorrow.

night-o

*edit*
on a side note, it's quite ironic for this to be my 450th post, and apparently my Member status changed to Quite Deadly, in a thread about death no less. :P

Originally posted by Ilek-Vaad
Ah.. missed that post.

well, you can take their silence as meaning...



'DOH!

But you know... am I the only one finding it funny that several witnesses said they saw a thick jacket?

Check the earlier Articles.

you also hafta realize. it's close to 1am in some parts in the US. and most of your "murder apologists" are asleep.

Me personally, i agree w/ what the guy said about the cops having someone ID the guy, but it was the wrong info and it being a tragic accident. I think that these guys who killed the wrong man have guilt enough that that should be their punishment. but i see you guys don't care about the other persons, and that mistakes DO happen.

W/ that, i'm going to bed. i hafta work tomorrow.

night-o

So anyone who kills anyone and feels guilty about it has had enough punishment because they feel guilty?

btw:

"But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html

btw:

"But the revelation that will prove most uncomfortable for Scotland Yard was that the 27-year-old electrician had already been restrained by a surveillance officer before being shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1550565,00.html
and also embarrasing to a lesser degree is the fact the the person was restrained, and in close range...


And 3 bullets still missed.

glad they didn't hit anyone else.

So anyone who kills anyone and feels guilty about it has had enough punishment because they feel guilty?

no. anyone who kills anyone and feels guilty shouldn't have that as a punishment, i.e. murderers, i think they should get the death penalty. but anyone who mistakenly kills someone and feels guilty will feel true guilt (imo) and that should be enough. The men who are a part of this accident (not just the shooters) have got to be going through hell right now.

(ok so i lied about going to sleep just now, but i will be shortly :P)

The Surveillance team "Positively Identified" him as a Terrorist Bomber or a Posible Bomber. The Police got that information and reacted to it, when de Menezes entered the train at a run.

"Positively Identified as a Possible Bomber"... now there's a catchy, completely logical phrase... :rolleyes:

...

And 3 bullets still missed.

...

have you ever been in a high stress situation? was the dude struggling? i'm not surprised some missed. even at that range.

"Positively Identified as a Possible Bomber"... now there's a catchy, completely logical phrase... :rolleyes:

the way i see it is that he was positively identified as an known associate of the terrorists who perpetrated(sp) the attacks earlier in london (either that same day, or 2 weeks before) and that he coulda been a possible bomber.

Everyone involved and responsible for this travesty should be out on their ass on the streets, with all of their worldy possessions stripped from them to be sold, the proceeds going to this poor man's family.

Everyone involved and responsible for this travesty should be out on their ass on the streets, with all of their worldy possessions stripped from them to be sold, the proceeds going to this poor man's family.

whatever, you're just out for blood. You have no sympathy. True the UK gov't should compensate the family for what has happened, but these guys made a mistake. y'know... they're human. Did you forget they were human? (prolly should take that last question back as it's rhetorical and could be considered flamebait)

whatever, you're just out for blood. You have no sympathy. True the UK gov't should compensate the family for what has happened, but these guys made a mistake. y'know... they're human. Did you forget they were human? (prolly should take that last question back as it's rhetorical and could be considered flamebait)


Shouldn't there be some sort of punishment so they don't make such rash decisions in teh future at least?

whatever, you're just out for blood. You have no sympathy. True the UK gov't should compensate the family for what has happened, but these guys made a mistake. y'know... they're human. Did you forget they were human? (prolly should take that last question back as it's rhetorical and could be considered flamebait)

The last time I checked, negligence leading to manslaughter was still a punishable offence be it whether you fail to fix your brakes and cause a car accident or you mistakenly finger someone leading to his execution.

Shouldn't there be some sort of punishment so they don't make such rash decisions in teh future at least?

how do you know it was rash? besides, they may have thought it life or death.

i dunno all the situation, mebbe they should be punished, mebbe they shouldn't. but from what i've read so far, i don't think so.

The pigs have been lying about the situation since they killed him. At the moment I see no reason to believe they had any kind of identification confirmed by that time. He was dead by the time he reached the bus stop. Poor man.

As I said before, I am waiting for the full inquiry to be completed before I make my mind up. So far all we have read is contradictory witness statements. One witness says he ran onto the train and was tackled/fell to the ground, another says he walked on and sat down. One says he was wearing a bulky coat and had wires protruding from a belt, another one says he wasn't.

Witnesses aren't always accurate, we don't know whether this report is genuine or what evidence it was based on.

The last time I checked, negligence leading to manslaughter was still a punishable offence be it whether you fail to fix your brakes and cause a car accident or you mistakenly finger someone leading to his execution.

Sure, but it has to be due to negligence, not due to an honest mistake. If the guy had a picture available, looked at it, looked at the suspect and believed that was him, that's not negligence. If the guy had a picture available and he said that's him without looking at the picture, that might be negligence. You have seen no evidence, heard no facts, listened to no testimony, dont even have a clue who these people who positively identified him are or how they positively identified him (incorrectly), yet you are ready to convict. I have very little respect for the guilty until proven innocent crowd, you are no better than the idiots who put all the blame on the victim before knowing all the facts if you are already assuming negligence.

As I said before, I am waiting for the full inquiry to be completed before I make my mind up. So far all we have read is contradictory witness statements. One witness says he ran onto the train and was tackled/fell to the ground, another says he walked on and sat down. One says he was wearing a bulky coat and had wires protruding from a belt, another one says he wasn't.

Witnesses aren't always accurate, we don't know whether this report is genuine or what evidence it was based on.

"The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat"

as i said before, clearly reality itself has been distorted by the liberal media to make the police-state look bad.

The pigs have been lying about the situation since they killed him.

par for the fucking course

Witnesses aren't always accurate, we don't know whether this report is genuine or what evidence it was based on.

Yeah, but the wintess who is saying he [Jean Charles] walked on and sat down is the surveillance officer who was in the same carriage and there is CCTV footage backing them up.

The Unmistakable Moral: Never run, ever. There just might be plainclothes officers tailing you who've mistaken you for an Arab terrorist and have decided to kill you if they see you running. So don't run, even if there's a good reason to.

Kind of puts the dampers on a lot of events in the London Olympics, no?

"Positively Identified as a Possible Bomber"... now there's a catchy, completely logical phrase... :rolleyes:

"Positively Identified as a Possible Bomber" is distinct from "Possibly Identified as a Positive Bomber". Discuss.

Candidates should only write on one side of the paper.

Kind of puts the dampers on a lot of events in the London Olympics, no?

Well Pakistan's Olympic effort just went straight out the window now.

but anyone who mistakenly kills someone and feels guilty will feel true guilt (imo) and that should be enough. The men who are a part of this accident (not just the shooters) have got to be going through hell right now.

What the "¤#"%&¤#"%¤?
Sorry that I shot your little daughter. I thought she was a deer.

I'm going to jump on the fence and wait for the full report to come out rather than believing what is probably a one sided leaked report.

What really puzzles me is why this really is such an issue for some people on this board. Of course there are those that just hate the police so any grudge can be worked out here.

And if the Police are wrong in their actions then they will be tried in court and brought to justice.

This considering the number of times the Police use fire arms the number of times this happens in minimal.

And if the Police are wrong in their actions then they will be tried in court and brought to justice.

The problems with this is that it might lead to the scapegoating of individual officers, while not elading to a fundamental reassessment of policy. If it is the case that the death was a result of different individuals making a string of separate understandable errors, then the mechanism for reacting to this kind of situation needs to be at the very least reassessed, if not overhauled completely.

What really puzzles me is why this really is such an issue for some people on this board. Of course there are those that just hate the police so any grudge can be worked out here.


IMO the police is one of the instances you have to able to trust and English police has been able to maintain this trust (in general, there are always those who don't trust). Until now.

I'm going to jump on the fence and wait for the full report to come out rather than believing what is probably a one sided leaked report.
If a police report was one sided, it would probably be towards the police. This is a police report.

What really puzzles me is why this really is such an issue for some people on this board. Of course there are those that just hate the police so any grudge can be worked out here.
Because we don't have the death penalty. For anything. The British people are proud of the fact that they have a fair legal system, so to shoot an innocent man who wasn't even acting suspiciously is just appalling for many.

And if the Police are wrong in their actions then they will be tried in court and brought to justice.
Possibly.

This considering the number of times the Police use fire arms the number of times this happens in minimal.
The Police don't use firearms very often.

I'm going to jump on the fence and wait for the full report to come out rather than believing what is probably a one sided leaked report.

What really puzzles me is why this really is such an issue for some people on this board. Of course there are those that just hate the police so any grudge can be worked out here.

And if the Police are wrong in their actions then they will be tried in court and brought to justice.

This considering the number of times the Police use fire arms the number of times this happens in minimal.

The guy is from my country, specifically my state.

whatever, you're just out for blood. You have no sympathy. True the UK gov't should compensate the family for what has happened, but these guys made a mistake. y'know... they're human. Did you forget they were human? (prolly should take that last question back as it's rhetorical and could be considered flamebait)

He's out for blood? You support the death penalty.

Sure, but it has to be due to negligence, not due to an honest mistake. If the guy had a picture available, looked at it, looked at the suspect and believed that was him, that's not negligence. If the guy had a picture available and he said that's him without looking at the picture, that might be negligence. You have seen no evidence, heard no facts, listened to no testimony, dont even have a clue who these people who positively identified him are or how they positively identified him (incorrectly), yet you are ready to convict. I have very little respect for the guilty until proven innocent crowd, you are no better than the idiots who put all the blame on the victim before knowing all the facts if you are already assuming negligence.

No, "Manslaughter THROUGH NEGLIGENCE" has to be by negligence. Manslaughter is accidental killing.

I'm actually really pissed off. Apparently they're likely to charge with manslaughter, but murder is unlikely. How can you shoot an unarmed man, wearing normal clothes in the head without warning, then not get charged with murder?

What I find interesting is that the police lied for weeks, and are only having to change their story now that some of the truth has been leaked out. And had it not been leaked out...would they have published the truth? Having already been lying for a month plus god knows how long it would have taken to complete it?

The days after the guy was killed, when a spokesman attempted to justify the killing on the grounds that the man was "particularly dark-skinned for a Brazilian", his head at least should have rolled. Now that much of the information released to the media by press release has been shown to be a load of crap, quite a few senior people should pay with their careers. Basically any officer who attended the press conferences, including the head of the Metropolitan Police himself.

It is one thing for the state to sanction executions in the streets, perhaps if we are going down that road, we should at least retain the right to hear the truth about it? This is the standard we expect from elected officials, it is also the standard we should expect of public servants.

What really puzzles me is why this really is such an issue for some people on this board.
Actually, what really puzzles me is how anyone can think that it's not a big issue.

so if the police had been RIGHT and he had been in fact a possible bomber, would it have been OK to kill him? are all terroists on a "shoot on sight" order? are they all on a "shoot on entering the subway" order?

is it really OK to shoot someone carrying no bags and wearing normal clothing for having the nerve to get on a train?

does it really matter that they identified the man incorrectly? how can it be OK to kill people for getting on the train no matter who they are?

Actually, what really puzzles me is how anyone can think that it's not a big issue.

Because they are used to police shootouts. We are used to a less homicidal police policy.

Sure, but it has to be due to negligence, not due to an honest mistake. If the guy had a picture available, looked at it, looked at the suspect and believed that was him, that's not negligence. If the guy had a picture available and he said that's him without looking at the picture, that might be negligence. You have seen no evidence, heard no facts, listened to no testimony, dont even have a clue who these people who positively identified him are or how they positively identified him (incorrectly), yet you are ready to convict. I have very little respect for the guilty until proven innocent crowd, you are no better than the idiots who put all the blame on the victim before knowing all the facts if you are already assuming negligence.

Mmmm, and you are quick to accuse me. My post was in regards to the person who believed that it was a mistake as if that was the end of the matter. Specifically, did I say that they were negligent? It is a real possibility, but that is a matter up for the investigative team to decide no? Although the fact that this report appears to have been from the police itself does show the participants in a negative light. And that it was still manslaughter.

You might have inferred that I was ready to convict based on what I posted, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1551317,00.html
I'm sure most of you remember that Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian living in London, was shot dead by London police at an underground station, and sadly, was innocent. Now, the details are released.

Now, I'd like to add some commentary here. He was innocent, and that was sad. Should it be investigated independently? Yes, just to make sure. Make sure of what, may you ask? I want to see that the police didn't murder him, or acted far outta conduct.
Otherwise, the police, as far as I can tell, were perfectly in order. He was wearing a heavy jacket in July, jumped a police barricade, and ran from the police when he was stopped. Furthermore, he ran from armed policemen all the way to the train. It sounds reasonable that he was shot.
It is very sad that there are so many people that hate the London police for this. Pope John Paul II, an astute observer of Western society, was fond of saying that we live in a culture of death. We do. The death of several innocent civilians is disregarded, for our minds refuse to comprehend it. The bigger the death toll, the more we choose to ignore it. Yet an incident involving one man is bite size for our primitive brains, and even though he could've potentially killed dozens, it seems even more tragic that he died. The death of thousands of Iraqis is disregarded by the public, but the death of far less Americans is a moral outrage. The death penalty, where it is practiced, is seen as abominal. Nevermind the fact that most of the inmates killed many. Do we feel sorry for them? I am not advocating the death of anyone. I am simply showing what I believe is the irrationality of our thinking. It is almost as if that, in the West, one life is more valuable than many lives.

Damn! My thread was merged into this. Well, such is life.

Ah.. missed that post.

well, you can take their silence as meaning...



'DOH!

But you know... am I the only one finding it funny that several witnesses said they saw a thick jacket?

Check the earlier Articles.

In the previous thread someone supporting the actions of the police raised the issue of how easy it is to conceal plastic explosives and a detonator. I asked that person how much C4 was required to blow up a bus but they never replied. I don't know much about explosives but I assume C4 would be easier to conceal than dynamite.

B4 I get to side tracked, my point is that the amount of clothes Sr. de Menezes was wearing is not ultimately the issue. I'm sure anyone with a backpack would be able to carry enough explosives to detonate a bus or a subway car. Does this mean that the police should arbitrarily shoot down people carrying backpacks?

Mmmm, and you are quick to accuse me. My post was in regards to the person who believed that it was a mistake as if that was the end of the matter. Specifically, did I say that they were negligent? It is a real possibility, but that is a matter up for the investigative team to decide no? Although the fact that this report appears to have been from the police itself does show the participants in a negative light. And that it was still manslaughter.

You might have inferred that I was ready to convict based on what I posted, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken then.

Read my post again, it said "if you are assuming negligence". If you are not, then obviously my post isn't aimed at you. It is aimed at people who are already considering these people guilty without having heard any evidence whatsoever.

I am not well versed in British law, but typically western systems require intent in order to find you guilty of a crime. The idea that manslaughter does not require intent to commit a crime is a misconception typical of those who have not studied the most basic principles of law. Therefore, you are incorrect in unequivocally stating that this is manslaughter. This may be manslaughter, but we dont know that yet until we find out more information and right now it is sounding like it is not.

Manslaughter is different from murder in that it does not require malice aforethought (the intent to murder). This does not mean that anyone who kills someone else accidentally is guilty of manslaughter. Manslaughter still requires criminal intent, but the intent does not have to be murder. If you kill someone accidentally and it was in no way related to the breaking of any laws, you are guilty of nothing.

Manslaughter is broken down into two general types the first of which is what is reffered to as voluntary manslaughter. This is the type where you killed the person in a fit of rage (or the heat of the moment or whatever the case may be). The line between this one and murder is very thin and depends heavily on the opinion of a jury. In this type of crime, you did not have malice aforethought because you didnt set out to kill this person you just ended up getting angry and doing it. You do have intent, because you did choose to kill this person, but you do not have malice aforethought because that is not what you set out to do. Also in this category are cases where someone died in relation to a felony you committed (ie. you crashed the getaway car after a robbery and your accomplice died).

In involuntary manslaughter, the line is a bit clearer. In this type of crime, you caused someone's death by violating a non-felony. The classic example is vehicular manslaughter (ie. you ignored a stop sign and ran into a pedestrian).

The key thing here is that crimes require intent. If there is no criminal intent then there was no crime. I cant vouch for the legal system of the UK since I am only familiar with the US system, but civilized countries typically share that requirement of criminal intent in order to charge you with (and find you guilty of) a crime.

I'm sure anyone with a backpack would be able to carry enough explosives to detonate a bus or a subway car. Does this mean that the police should arbitrarily shoot down people carrying backpacks?

yes. but don't be so hasty to think the terrorist scum can get away just by not carrying backpacks either. we're going to have to randomly shoot people in general - no matter what they are dressed like or how they are acting or how close they live to somebody we suspect might know a guy whose barber thinks not all terrorists are bad people - in order to send a message to them that their actions will not be tolerated.

If the police who pulled the trigger were working with the information that this was most likley a suicide bomber and had no reason to think otherwise. And if they are thne charge with manslaughter I advise all armed police in the UK not to pick up a weapon again, as they do this of their own volition, they cannot be forced to bear arms.
It was a terrible mistake, the reasons should be investigated. The blame if there is any is further up the command chain. Or it could be just a terrible thing that the police must learn from. Why are we obsessed with finding a person to point the finger at. Could it not be a combination of events that no one was responsible for (other than those who created the situation in the forst place, the terrorists)?

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.
Shit happens. You might want to get used to it.

Why are we obsessed with finding a person to point the finger at. Could it not be a combination of events that no one was responsible for (other than those who created the situation in the forst place, the terrorists)?

there is no reasonable chain of events that leads to the police summarily executing someone who was already restrained and then lying about every aspect of the incident for a month.

there is no reasonable chain of events that leads to the police summarily executing someone who was already restrained and then lying about every aspect of the incident for a month.
They weren't lying because people were insanely obsessed in the first place and shut their ears and went "LALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! HE WAS KILLED BRUTALLY!"


Or am I just used to accidental police killings as a resident of California? It happens. We don't scream for blood after the event though.

there is no reasonable chain of events that leads to the police summarily executing someone who was already restrained and then lying about every aspect of the incident for a month. None of the police directly involved have lied, they have all made reports which is what has been leaked. The people in charge may have lied. And if it was policy to kill a supected terrorist and potential mass murderer while temporarily restrained then it is justified.
Yes let's see exactly what happed, and see if some one could have done better. Let's see if there was gross neglect. But let us also accept that it could be a terrible culmination of many small incidents.
Let's remember the missiles that accidentaly hit the chinese embasy, the Uk soldier killed by US pilots. There are times when things do just happen. this will always be the case, and when weapons are involved those mistakes are more final.
Get on your high horse if you have never made a mistake, acted on information you thought to be true but was not. When you can say you have never given a second to decide an action done the wrong thing.

Well, I do remember the press conferences in the first week after the bombing, the the policemen speaking at those, including the head of the Metropolitan Police, were talking out of their arses.

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.


i thought only americans were evil fuck up's...must be confused.my bad

sarcasm is getting stronger by the minute. :headbang:

..the police took the correct actions...So Junii...When are you going to Join the Liberation Army?
Bush needs you more than ever.
I am willing to help pay for your fare.

Well, I do remember the press conferences in the first week after the bombing, the the policemen speaking at those, including the head of the Metropolitan Police, were talking out of their arses.
Not one officer on the ground at the time appeared at a conference.

He was dead by the time he reached the bus stop. Poor man.He was dead by the time he left that building...his fate was written...

He was guilty of not having enough money to live in a classier neighborhood.

He was dead by the time he left that building...his fate was written...

He was guilty of not having enough money to live in a classier neighborhood.
No the neighborhood was ok by London standards, the only thing he was guilty of was remaining in the UK illegaly. His death was a great shame and I will wait for all the facts before I judge the actions of those involved.

Accidents happen, sometimes the police shoot an innocent man. When they do they get punished. I don't see why this particular shooting is so fascinating to the people on this forum.

That Unlawful Killing smacked of self-gratification, and how well trained are these "police" anyway.

That Unlawful Killing smacked of self-gratification, and how well trained are these "police" anyway.
Very well trained, and placed in very very difficult situations.
If you draw a gun on some one you intend to kill them!

No the neighborhood was ok by London standards.oh...So the murdered Brazilian was from a "Good" neighborhood?

interesting.

oh...So the murdered Brazilian was from a "Good" neighborhood?

interesting.
No the man that was mistakenly shot was living in the same flat block as a number of suspected terrorist.

And if you want to get emotive about it: The Brazillian who was living and working in the Uk illegaly lived in London and had passing contact with two suspected terrorist, lived in the same building and followed the same patern of travel of at least two suspected bombers.

Let's just stick to the facts shall we.

Very well trained, and placed in very very difficult situations.
If you draw a gun on some one you intend to kill them!

Well trained at killing, Yes, I bet they could blow the balls off a fly in mid air, but with regards to communication, No. and thats what make effective policing.

Also...

They swapped teams once the suspect left the house, thats like playing chineese whispers, he had no backpack, their was no puffy jacket, he had a tan and he did not look English, they obscure reality with lies.

No the man that was mistakenly shot was living in the same flat block as a number of suspected terrorist ...so,You are saying that:
the MURDERED Brazilian AND the "number of suspected Terrorists"... they all lived in a classy Neighborhood ?

Or am I just used to accidental police killings as a resident of California? It happens. We don't scream for blood after the event though.

To be blunt, many brits see the US as chronically fucked up. No-one here carries guns because we don't feel we need them (yes we legally can't but if we felt we needed them then we'd do something about it). In the US it seems that the police and half the public have a loaded pistol on their person and a shotgun in the car. It's a far more brutal and hardened place. We don't want to live in that atmosphere so we will make a stink about this kind of thing to make sure it doesn't happen much.

Well trained at killing, Yes, I bet they could blow the balls off a fly in mid air, but with regards to communication, No. and thats what make effective policing.

Also...

They swapped teams once the suspect left the house, thats like playing chineese whispers, he had no backpack, their was no puffy jacket, he had a tan and he did not look English, they obscure reality with lies.
well I can see how open to the truth you are. Of course they changed teams, there were mobile and fixed units, the flats still had to be watched.

The shooting of weapons is only a very small part of the training, do some research!
Read the reports from those following him, no mention of puffy jacket, no mention of back pack.
The police in the UK use thier weapons less than most forces around the world. Our fire arms officers are some of the best trained.
You trying doing one tenth what they do and then get on your bloody high horse!

so,You are saying that:
the MURDERED Brazilian AND the "number of suspected Terrorists"... they all lived in a classy Neighborhood ?
If you want to play that game:
Never seen anything about a murdered Brazilian sorry.
There was something about an illegal alien being mistaken for a mass murderer and being shot, and there being an ongoing investigation into the incident.

If you want to play that game:
Never seen anything about a murdered Brazilian sorry.
There was something about an illegal alien being mistaken for a mass murderer and being shot, and there being an ongoing investigation into the incident.

You make it sound like its more acceptable that an illegal alien was shot. Does that make him less of a human being? Is he less worthy of life?

well I can see how open to the truth you are. Of course they changed teams, there were mobile and fixed units, the flats still had to be watched.

The shooting of weapons is only a very small part of the training, do some research!
Read the reports from those following him, no mention of puffy jacket, no mention of back pack.
The police in the UK use thier weapons less than most forces around the world. Our fire arms officers are some of the best trained.
You trying doing one tenth what they do and then get on your bloody high horse!

good point, but at the root of it all, Jean Charles de Menezes died because of panic; that of the police, and the state of panic in the city in general more than his own. It was hard to say what the police should have done in this circumstance, (please remenber they used a taser on a terrorism susect sometime later) but the more we hear about it the simpler it becomes; I think that if the intelligence we have on a suspect is that they live near a known address and they wear a jacket, we shouldn’t be executing them, because thats murder...

If you want to play that game:
Never seen anything about a murdered Brazilian sorry.
There was something about an illegal alien being mistaken for a mass murderer and being shot, and there being an ongoing investigation into the incident.so, was the Brazilean "Mass murderer" from a Classy neighborhood?

You make it sound like its more acceptable that an illegal alien was shot. Does that make him less of a human being? Is he less worthy of life?
No the point I was trying to make is by using the word 'murdered' the poster is assuming theory as fact, and that we can all use words to make a situation sound different.
I think what happed was tragic, but will wait for people with more experience and knowledge than me to investigate it. I will wait for the facts to all come out and the opinions of people who matter then make my mind up. Until then I am open.

If you want to play that game:
Never seen anything about a murdered Brazilian sorry.
There was something about an illegal alien being mistaken for a mass murderer and being shot, and there being an ongoing investigation into the incident.

What really pisses me off is the disgusting way the Home Office releases the information that he had overstayed his visa, when he’s about to be buried; as though it somehow justifies what happened. They may have no shame, but I do, and I am ashamed to be British at times like this.

"This information is not intended in any way to prejudice or influence the independent investigation into the circumstances of Mr de Menezes’ death, or any possible future proceedings."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article302270.ece

good point, but at the root of it all, Jean Charles de Menezes died because of panic; that of the police, and the state of panic in the city in general more than his own. It was hard to say what the police should have done in this circumstance, (please remenber they used a taser on a terrorism susect sometime later) but the more we hear about it the simpler it becomes; I think that if the intelligence we have on a suspect is that they live near a known address and they wear a jacket, we shouldn’t be executing them, because thats murder...
As I say, I'll wait and see. But I agree it appears something went wrong. But I agree with the basic priciples of how to deal with terrorist who intend or are trying to carry out murder. As with the SAS in Gib.

Well trained at killing, Yes, I bet they could blow the balls off a fly in mid air,<snip>
EDIT:It took eleven bullets to kill a man sitting down. (Just finished the Guardian article.)

To be blunt, many brits see the US as chronically fucked up. No-one here carries guns because we don't feel we need them<snip>
This is true. On the other hand, many people would consider police telling women not to leave their homes at night because they can't catch a gang of rapists to be chronically screwed up.

What really pisses me off is the disgusting way the Home Office releases the information that he had overstayed his visa, when he’s about to be buried; as though it somehow justifies what happened. They may have no shame, but I do, and I am ashamed to be British at times like this.

"This information is not intended in any way to prejudice or influence the independent investigation into the circumstances of Mr de Menezes’ death, or any possible future proceedings."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article302270.ece
It had been hinted at in the press already, but I agree the gov could have kept quiet a few more days.

This is true. On the other hand, many people would consider police telling women not to leave their homes at night because they can't catch a gang of rapists to be chronically screwed up.

It seems more sensible to warn women of a danger than to try and cover it up because they arent making headway. At the very least they are accepting a shortcoming and trying to work on it

... agree the gov could have kept quiet a few more days.this coming from the person who keeps posting
"...but, but he was an illegal alien"

This is true. On the other hand, many people would consider police telling women not to leave their homes at night because they can't catch a gang of rapists to be chronically screwed up.

And the US never has gangs it can't catch. Quite frankly I advise no-one to wander the streets alone at night whatever the situation, its a risk if you're an SAS soldier in full CT gear. The odds are long but sooner or later your dice come up snake-eyes.

this is a supposed leeked document, it dont meen its real, and even if it is, you CAN NOT do anything to the police officers for doing their job, yes its unfortunate, but he was an illegal anyway so had something to hide!

this is a supposed leeked document, it dont meen its real, and even if it is, you CAN NOT do anything to the police officers for doing their job, yes its unfortunate, but he was an illegal anyway so had something to hide!

It may or may not be real.

Youcan indeed punish police officers for commiting illegal acts on duty.

Being an illegal alien is grounds for deportation. Not execution.

this coming from the person who keeps posting
"...but, but he was an illegal alien"No my posting of the illegal alien statements was to highlight the manical screems of 'State murder' that were being bandied about. It's use was to show how twisted statement can get when you mix in a few emotive concepts.

And the US never has gangs it can't catch. Quite frankly I advise no-one to wander the streets alone at night whatever the situation, its a risk if you're an SAS soldier in full CT gear. The odds are long but sooner or later your dice come up snake-eyes.in SoCal...ther is many counties where the Police tells you not to go to the Park when its dark...man or Woman.

It seems more sensible to warn women of a danger than to try and cover it up because they arent making headway. At the very least they are accepting a shortcoming and trying to work on it
That's one viewpoint. Another is that if the police are incapable of defending the public they have NO right to say the public can't do it themselves.
To say to a woman that she must be a prisoner in her own town, her own home, because of criminals that the police cannot deal with is ridiculous, to further extend that to, "If you do not behave as a helpless victim, if you take your safety into your own hands and refuse to be cowed by violent thugs, you will be prosecuted for assault and/or manslaughter." is beyond all reason.

That's one viewpoint. Another is that if the police are incapable of defending the public they have NO right to say the public can't do it themselves.
To say to a woman that she must be a prisoner in her own town, her own home, because of criminals that the police cannot deal with is ridiculous, to further extend that to, "If you do not behave as a helpless victim, if you take your safety into your own hands and refuse to be cowed by violent thugs, you will be prosecuted for assault and/or manslaughter." is beyond all reason.

We cant expect the police to be able to solve every single crime. Sometimes the criminals are just too smart and make sure to cover themselves. If we want to be as safe as expect we should be we have to work together with the police instead of expecting them to do all the work for us.

As for being prosecuted for assault or manslaughter that is only the case if you step from self defense to a position where you are attacking unneccesarily

No my posting of the illegal alien statements was to highlight the manical screems of 'State murder' that were being bandied about. It's use was to show how twisted statement can get when you mix in a few emotive concepts.you cant use State Murder with Immigracion issues.
you can mix them...you cant compare.

I think you are seriously fucked up.

That's one viewpoint. Another is that if the police are incapable of defending the public they have NO right to say the public can't do it themselves.
To say to a woman that she must be a prisoner in her own town, her own home, because of criminals that the police cannot deal with is ridiculous, to further extend that to, "If you do not behave as a helpless victim, if you take your safety into your own hands and refuse to be cowed by violent thugs, you will be prosecuted for assault and/or manslaughter." is beyond all reason.

I invite you to read Oceandrivve's post above yours.

I also invite you to note that British Law allows force to be used when dealing with criminals. I am allowed to beat the crap out of a mugger or burglar because, in attacking me or illegally entering my property they commited a crime against which Ican defend myself.

I am not allowed to kill or to keep beating them after they are subdued though because it is no longer my safety or property at issue.

Oh, and I'd like to meet the police who could instantly catch criminals however clever or capable they were. Pity they'll never exist outside of Toyland.

My friend sent me this in an email:

what do you reckon to the idea that the press interviewed plain-clothed police instead of 'members of the public'?
do you think the plain-clothed officers might have already begun to spread confusion around inside the carriage?
can we now never trust the media reports that come out about any serious incident?
like the cyprus air crash - one member of the public made up a story about receiving a text message...
hmm, i know it's been this way for a long time anyway, but now it seems evermore obvious we're living in unknowns, lies and obsfucations.... if that's the word...
Clearly the witness statements were inaccurate... now, is it too much of a conspiracy theory to suggest, as my friend has done, that the 'witnesses' were plants? How else to explain this?

Colodia, your comments are absurd. This kind of thing is no big deal where you live? Rather than criticise us for over-reacting, perhaps you should consider that things are seriouslty fucked up where you live?

You know what all of this is adding up to? The Metropolitan Police LIED. God help us when it's come to this.

And there's more! The Daily Express, once a vaguely respectable newspaper but now a rabidly right wing rag owned by a porn baron, has led with a front page defending the police because... Menendes bore a passing resemblance to Hussain Osman, one of the failed 21/07 bombers.

Fuck. Off. There's very little resemblance, but that's not the issue. This kind of bullshit is, for me, highly indicative of endemic racism. Dark skin? Check. Must be our man.

What the hell is going on in my country?

And the US never has gangs it can't catch. Quite frankly I advise no-one to wander the streets alone at night whatever the situation, its a risk if you're an SAS soldier in full CT gear. The odds are long but sooner or later your dice come up snake-eyes.
Depends on the state. Many of them have far lower incidents of violent assault and rape than England.
And you think that is fine? OK, you believe that is acceptable that's fine for you.
I don't. I think that you are entitled as a basic human right to defend yourself. I think that you are entitled as a basic human right to defend yourself using the most efficient method available to you.

you cant use State Murder with Immigracion issues.
you can mix them...you cant compare.

You are seriously fucked up.
I think you are some racist freak.
.
Funny you must not have read anything else I have posted.
My point YET AGAIN is we do not know it was murder so should not use the word. He was in the country illegal but that is nothing to do with the investigation or reason for his death. The reason I used that was to illustrate how using emotive phrases can give the wrong impression.
AND AGAIN we will have to wait until allthe facts are out and the investigation complete beofre we judge what happend.

Yet again with your phsycic powers you have appear to hint this was murder.

And as some one who has worked in the equal opps field for 15 years your other comments have brought a welcome smile to my face.

But I will not as you appear to be able prejudge a person or investigation without knowing more.

Depends on the state. Many of them have far lower incidents of violent assault and rape than England.
And you think that is fine? OK, you believe that is acceptable that's fine for you.
I don't. I think that you are entitled as a basic human right to defend yourself. I think that you are entitled as a basic human right to defend yourself using the most efficient method available to you.

You have a right to defend yourself in England as well but not to move from defence to attack

My friend sent me this in an email:


Clearly the witness statements were inaccurate... now, is it too much of a conspiracy theory to suggest, as my friend has done, that the 'witnesses' were plants? How else to explain this?

Colodia, your comments are absurd. This kind of thing is no big deal where you live? Rather than criticise us for over-reacting, perhaps you should consider that things are seriouslty fucked up where you live?

You know what all of this is adding up to? The Metropolitan Police LIED. God help us when it's come to this.

And there's more! The Daily Express, once a vaguely respectable newspaper but now a rabidly right wing rag owned by a porn baron, has led with a front page defending the police because... Menendes bore a passing resemblance to Hussain Osman, one of the failed 21/07 bombers.

Fuck. Off. There's very little resemblance, but that's not the issue. This kind of bullshit is, for me, highly indicative of endemic racism. Dark skin? Check. Must be our man.

What the hell is going on in my country?
you should read eye witness reports of high pressure incidents they are never reliable and often contradictory. The press puts too much score on 'he was there he knows exactlty what happened' the human mind under stress can play some funny tricks!

I invite you to read Oceandrivve's post above yours.

I also invite you to note that British Law allows force to be used when dealing with criminals. I am allowed to beat the crap out of a mugger or burglar because, in attacking me or illegally entering my property they commited a crime against which Ican defend myself.

I am not allowed to kill or to keep beating them after they are subdued though because it is no longer my safety or property at issue.

Oh, and I'd like to meet the police who could instantly catch criminals however clever or capable they were. Pity they'll never exist outside of Toyland.
I find it interesting that whenever people compare crime to America, they always pick the worst state.

British law does not permit you to use any weapons to defend yourself. Now how the hell else is a 50kg woman supposed to fight off three 80kg men?

Way to miss the point there. If the police cannot guarantee your safety (which they can't) then it is not reasonable for them to deny you the right to protect yourself (which they do).

You have a right to defend yourself in England as well but not to move from defence to attack
And they interpret using a weapon as attack.

My point YET AGAIN is we do not know it was murder so should not use the word. .when the police kill a Criminal...I would not call it murder..

But he was not a Criminal...so for me it is Murder.

I don't give a fuck about what half-assed-excuses the policemen (or other people) are going to come up again and again."he looked arab".."But he was wearing a Bulky jacket".. "he came out ot that Building full of Immigrants".. "He run".."he jumpet the fare turnikets".. "expired visa"..blah,blah,blah

The Brazilian was not a Criminal...so for me its murder.

there is another word I can use..."Executed".

when the police kill a Criminal...I would not call it murder..

But he was not a Criminal...so for me it is Murder.

I don't give a fuck about what half-assed-excuses... the policemen or other people are going to come up again and again.

The Brazilian was not a Criminal...so for me its murder.

there is another word I can use..."Executed".
As the police were working with official state sanction, I think "Executed" is more accurate.

What if he had been carrying a gun in his pocket? What if he had some plastic explosive in his pocket? There's all sorts of ways to blow up a train or kill people if you do it right.
But instead you all whine about the fact he WASN'T doing anything wrong. But if he had, you'd be praising those people who shot him.
Hypocrits.

when the police kill a Criminal...I would not call it murder..

But he was not a Criminal...so for me it is Murder.

I don't give a fuck about what half-assed-excuses... the policemen or other people are going to come up again and again.

The Brazilian was not a Criminal...so for me its murder.

there is another word I can use..."Executed".
So when anyone dies and it is not from natural cuases and there is another involved it is murder?

Execution, I would not use as that is the legal killing of someone, as it is the carry out of a sentence of death which would indicate legallity of action. The last thing I think it was, was and execution.

As I said I'll wait open minded.

I find it interesting that whenever people compare crime to America, they always pick the worst state.

British law does not permit you to use any weapons to defend yourself. Now how the hell else is a 50kg woman supposed to fight off three 80kg men?

Way to miss the point there. If the police cannot guarantee your safety (which they can't) then it is not reasonable for them to deny you the right to protect yourself (which they do).


And they interpret using a weapon as attack.

You can use a weapon in the case of a burglary. I'm not sure about in a public place though. I'll need to check.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

People still overlooking the fact that the police, public servants accountable to society, lied at the most senior levels for a month.

That alone is sufficient grounds to fire a large chunk of their managment cadres. Quite separately from the issue of the dead innocent man, which is bad enough, the false statements issued to the public is professional misconduct.

What if he had been carrying a gun in his pocket? What if he had some plastic explosive in his pocket? There's all sorts of ways to blow up a train or kill people if you do it right.
But instead you all whine about the fact he WASN'T doing anything wrong. But if he had, you'd be praising those people who shot him.
Hypocrits.
Loathsome. Have you not read what actually happened? They got the wrong man, let the other guy roam free, ended an innocent man's life and then lied to us.

you should read eye witness reports of high pressure incidents they are never reliable and often contradictory. The press puts too much score on 'he was there he knows exactlty what happened' the human mind under stress can play some funny tricks!
Agreed, but to the extent that it can create an image of someone vaulting over ticket barriers? I doubt it.

People still overlooking the fact that the police, public servants accountable to society, lied at the most senior levels for a month.

That alone is sufficient grounds to fire a large chunk of their managment cadres. Quite separately from the issue of the dead innocent man, which is bad enough, the false statements issued to the public is professional misconduct.
Exactly.

Loathsome. Have you not read what actually happened? They got the wrong man, let the other guy roam free, ended an innocent man's life and then lied to us.


Agreed, but to the extent that it can create an image of someone vaulting over ticket barriers? I doubt it.


Exactly.
No that would be the rumour mill going from 'did he?' to 'do you know what he did. he....' in a matter of two converstions.

So when anyone dies and it is not from natural cuases and there is another involved it is murder?he had no way to escape...he was in a tub...he was in a hole.

and apparently he was already restrained...and he was shot 7...seven time to the head.

not from natural causes? are you fucking kidding me?

he had no way to escape...he was in a tub...he was in a hole.

and apparently he was laready restrained...and he was shot 7...seven time to the head.

not form natural causes? are you fucking kidding me?
Are you all there? What I was asking was do you class all un natural death as murder or only those where the police are involved?

I will wait for an inquest to determine the legallity or other wise of his death.

What if he had been carrying a gun in his pocket? What if he had some plastic explosive in his pocket? There's all sorts of ways to blow up a train or kill people if you do it right.
But instead you all whine about the fact he WASN'T doing anything wrong. But if he had, you'd be praising those people who shot him.
Hypocrits.

No, I would still say it's wrong, because the police got no right to execute people and nothing else it was. If we allow this to happen, we would loose all rule of law.

As for the weapon carriage issue, I live in a state where carriing weapons is disallowed for privat persons and we got the lowest crime rates in the industrialised world. I'm quite happy to live somewhere where I can walk around at night, unharmed, without having to carry any weapon.

No, I would still say it's wrong, because the police got no right to execute people and nothing else it was. If we allow this to happen, we would loose all rule of law.

As for the weapon carriage issue, I live in a state where carriing weapons is disallowed for privat persons and we got the lowest crime rates in the industrialised world. I'm quite happy to live somewhere where I can walk around at night, unharmed, without having to carry any weapon.
If it took an action of volition for some one to detinate a bomb, I would expect that act to be stopped by the most expedient method.

No that would be the rumour mill going from 'did he?' to 'do you know what he did. he....' in a matter of two converstions.
Hmmm, maybe. Still seems deeply suspicious to me.

Are you all there? What I was asking was do you class all un natural death as murder or only those where the police are involved?When someone innocent is killed by firearm I call it murder.

When someone is tied up..and Shot several times to the head... I call it Execution.

being from the Police does not grant you the right to execute innocent people.

You can use a weapon in the case of a burglary. I'm not sure about in a public place though. I'll need to check.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html
But then you have to think about Tony Martin. He came downstairs to find burglars in his home so he made a panicked shot from the stairs. He was then found guilty of murder. (Later reduced to manslaughter, on supply of new evidence that showed he had indeed fired from the stairs in panic, as opposed to sneaking around his house with ninja-like stealth to callously murder the burglar, which is what the prosecution originally proved, in spite of having no evidence.) So factually, you can't use a gun even if you are an old man living miles from police who take three days to arrive after a burglary even after you have had multiple previous burglaries. Do you think a pensioner with a golf club/cricket bat could fend off two or three twenty-something burglars?

when someone is tied up..and Shot several times to the head...I call it murder...and I call it Execution.

being from the Police does not grant you the right to execute innocent people.
Yes tied would be a problem, temporarily restrained is another matter. If he were execution we have no problem it was legal.
If the person who pulled the trigger knew he was inicent it was murder.
Other than that it's too complicated without all the facts, unless you live in a land of black and white, right and wrong. In which case you can get some nice jackets that buckle up at the back.

If it took an action of volition for some one to detinate a bomb, I would expect that act to be stopped by the most expedient method.

Sure, but how can a restrained man without a bomb detonate? Eating to much beans? In this case I wouldn't advise the use of firearms anyway.

People still overlooking the fact that the police, public servants accountable to society, lied at the most senior levels for a month.

That alone is sufficient grounds to fire a large chunk of their managment cadres. Quite separately from the issue of the dead innocent man, which is bad enough, the false statements issued to the public is professional misconduct.
Are you seriously suggesting we argue about what actually happened? Shame on you! :rolleyes:

The Brazilian man was actually a Sodomite from the biblical city of Sodom who could transform into a shapeshifting lizard, he is in league with George Bush and also is the best friend of Osama Bin Laden. We should have tracked him down years ago.

He was responsible for the Sodomizing of 234,000,000 people during The X War, a was waged between reptialian shapeshifters and fairy yagnish's, who are in league with Margeret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II, who are secretly Illuminati face-changers.

Brilliant.

Are you seriously suggesting we argue about what actually happened? Shame on you! :rolleyes:
Hehehe, yes, it is a little strange how we are constantly being urged by the powers that be, to move on.

It will be a long and difficult process, running any sort of the investigation into the guy's death. However, sacking the police authorities for making misleading statements to the public shouldn't take any longer than a couple of weeks of inquiries. The sooner the management is replaced, the better. Maybe that will restore some public confidence.

Yes tied would be a problem, temporarily restrained is another matter. If he were execution we have no problem it was legal.
If the person who pulled the trigger knew he was inicent it was murder.Actually its the other way around...The Police/Judge/Jury/Executor/all-in-one... he better be sure the Brazilean is Guilty BEFORE executing him.

It would be like that even in "Judge Dredd" ultra fascist World.

"Ignorance is strength. Lies are truth."
-1984.

Actually its the other way around...The Police better be sure he is Guilty before executing him.

It would be like that even in "Judge Dredd" ultra fascist World.
Entering Zone 4 with a Zone 1-3 Pass, while black... Guilty. Execute! :rolleyes:

because the idea of summary executions as policy is scary enough without the fact that they utterly screwed it up and then tried desperately to cover up just how incompetent they are, perhaps?
Let's just hope that you or your friends don't bear a even a passing resemblance to any terrorists, if so it would probably be a good idea to change your look or stay out of sight.

Let's just hope that you or your friends don't bear a even a passing resemblance to any terrorists, if so it would probably be a good idea to change your look or stay out of sight.
See-through plastic bags, coats and clothing.
Oh wait, then you get done for indecent exposure. Doh!

Yes I'm lazy, I couldn't be bothered to read 3 pages of you all giving your opinions on this, so I'l skip straight to giving mine.

I still support the Police on this matter.

The bottom line is that Police are rightly being extra viglante, especially in Tube Stations. This was a foreign man, which regardless of Political Correctness puts him to be more of a threat in my eyes. In the weeks after a series of bombings, you have to be an idiot to run in a tube station right? Everyone knows that the armed police are working in the Tube Stations, and if your dark skinned you should have the smarts not to run infront of them towards a train.

Although I will never approve of actually killing anyone, this is the road the Met chose to take, emplying armed officers and I think they made the right call, even if they got it wrong.

Think about it this way:

If they shoot 5 people going towards trains, and only 1 is a terrorist, they have still saved 40 to 100 peoples lives.

If they shoot 5 people going towards trains, and only 1 is a terrorist, they have still saved 40 to 100 peoples lives.
If that's the way we are to value life, what moral high ground can we claim over the terrorists? :rolleyes: I'm not going to go through the pretence our authorities and institutions are any better, if they are into killing probably innocent people to play the stats game.

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.

Whats an ITV news ? How do you know the report is true ? Why is no other news station reporting this ? The tabloids also keep telling me Elvis is alive . Should I believe them ?

Whats an ITV news ? How do you know the report is true ? Why is no other news station reporting this ? The tabloids also keep telling me Elvis is alive . Should I believe them ?
It is the lead story of every newspaper in the UK. Several are calling for the resignation of the UK's chief of police. So it is a pretty credible shit-storm.

If that's the way we are to value life, what moral high ground can we claim over the terrorists? :rolleyes: I'm not going to go through the pretence our authorities and institutions are any better, if they are into killing probably innocent people to play the stats game.

I do agree, like I said, I think lethal force and executions are wrong in all forms.

You know what confuses me? I don't know if it was before or after this shooting, but the police used their "Stun gun" thing on a suspected terrorist. Why couldnt they do that to this guy?
I think they wanted ot make a point- "we will shoot you if you try anything funny"

Whats an ITV news ? How do you know the report is true ? Why is no other news station reporting this ? The tabloids also keep telling me Elvis is alive . Should I believe them ?
ITV is the main commercial TV station in the UK. Pretty much all other news stations are reporting this. Look harder next time.

Pablicosta, regardless of whether or not the police ought to be conducting themselves in this fashion with respect to apprehending suspected terrorists, the fact remains that they've attempted to cover this up from the very beginning. It's a disgrace.

It is the lead story of every newspaper in the UK. Several are calling for the resignation of the UK's chief of police. So it is a pretty credible shit-storm.

They buggered it up a bit dont you think ? If true the guys dead because of mistaken identity . Based on this ( if true ) more than one person should resign . And if there was a cover up the bunch should be arrested and held for trial . I supported the decision to shoot the guy based on the info that was out . If this is true then they are guilty of gross stupidity and possibly man slaughter .

the fact remains that they've attempted to cover this up from the very beginning. It's a disgrace.
Yes, and this alone is sufficient grounds to dismiss all police officers present at the press conferences in question. Professional misconduct, video evidence, shouldn't take long.

The inquiry into the shooting itself and procedures involved is now an entirely separate inquiry which can be conducted at leisure, with a view to bringing further charges to people lower down the chain of command.

But at the very least, Ian Blair, Brian Paddick and the third officer involved, should be removed as soon as possible.

Yes, and this alone is sufficient grounds to dismiss all police officers present at the press conferences in question. Professional misconduct, video evidence, shouldn't take long.

The inquiry into the shooting itself and procedures involved is now an entirely separate inquiry which can be conducted at leisure, with a view to bringing further charges to people lower down the chain of command.

But at the very least, Ian Blair, Brian Paddick and the third officer involved, should be removed as soon as possible.
It's a shame about Paddick. I'd have hoped for better from him, simply for the progress he represents.

EDIT: Sorry, Beer & Guns, I was a bit harsh on you.

Leaked documents from the independent investigation into the shooting of a man whom police mistook for one of the London Tube bombers, suggest key differences between the original police and witness version of events and subsequent reports.
The documents reportedly form part of the probe by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is refusing to comment while its inquiry continues.


Here is a comparison of the details made public in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, on 22 July, at Stockwell Tube station in south London, with those that have emerged from the leaked documents


Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 August 2005, 14:13 GMT 15:13 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Police shooting - the discrepancies
Leaked documents from the independent investigation into the shooting of a man whom police mistook for one of the London Tube bombers, suggest key differences between the original police and witness version of events and subsequent reports.
The documents reportedly form part of the probe by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is refusing to comment while its inquiry continues.


Here is a comparison of the details made public in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, on 22 July, at Stockwell Tube station in south London, with those that have emerged from the leaked documents.


Mr Menezes' final journey

IDENTIFICATION
Initial account
Sir Ian Blair said on the day of the shooting that it had been "directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation".

The man was under observation because he emerged from a block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill, where police believed a man connected with the four attempted bombings on the London Tube and bus network on 21 July was staying.

They followed him during his bus journey to Stockwell Tube station, where a Scotland Yard spokesman said his "clothing and behaviour" added to their suspicions.

Leaked evidence
Police staking out the flats, where Mr Menezes lived, decided he matched the description of one of the suspects they were seeking, according to the documents.
One officer reportedly said he "checked the photographs" and "thought it would be worth someone else having a look". However, he was unable to video the man for subsequent confirmation because he was "relieving" himself at the time.

By the time Mr Menezes reached Stockwell station, armed police received "positive identification" that the man they were following was one of the suspects.



Initial account
One eyewitness, Mark Whitby, said Mr Menezes was wearing a thick padded jacket, despite the warm weather, which could have been used to conceal something underneath.
Another witness said he had a black baseball cap and blue fleece.

Scotland Yard had said on the day that his clothing had added to suspicions but had not elaborated further.
Leaked evidence
Some of the leaked documents and accompanying CCTV footage suggest Mr Menezes was wearing a blue denim jacket.
This is also referred to by a member of the police surveillance team who observed him on board a Tube train

Initial account
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said after the shooting: "As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."
One eyewitness said at the time that Mr Menezes had vaulted over the ticket barriers just inside the entrance to Stockwell station as he was being pursued.


Leaked evidence
CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform and running to a train.
He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a seat facing the platform.

Initial account
Although police would not give details of the incident because of the independent investigation, they did say shortly after it happened that officers had shot a man dead in Stockwell station.
The following day Scotland Yard admitted Mr Menezes had been shot by mistake and apologised to his family for the "tragedy".

Met chief Sir Ian Blair said his officers had tried to get Mr Menezes under control before shooting him.

A witness spoke of a man jumping on to the stationary train and grabbing a man sitting opposite. As the witness ran off the train he heard four "dull bangs", which he realised were shots.

Another said he saw Mr Menezes run on to the train, "hotly pursued" by what he took to be three plain-clothes police officers. He said they pushed him to the floor and shot him five times.

At the opening of the inquest into his death, police told the coroner Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.
Leaked evidence
In one of the leaked documents, said to be a statement from one of the police surveillance team designated Hotel 3, the witness describes hearing shouting - including the word "police".
The statement says Mr Menezes stood up and advanced towards the witness and armed police.

He adds: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side."

He said he pushed the man back into his seat.

It was only after he had restrained him that he heard a gun shot.

The documents say that a post-mortem examination showed Mr Menezes had been shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, but that three other bullets had missed him.

Whats an ITV news ? How do you know the report is true ? Why is no other news station reporting this ? I assume you are American...

Why? cos you easily dismiss anything not coming from the US media.

Now is not the time to worry about this. I agree that this poor amn was unfortunate and that a national appology should be given to his family, but...
Overall, we should be praising our superb police force on the work that they have done to keep us safe from a third attack

Pablicosta, regardless of whether or not the police ought to be conducting themselves in this fashion with respect to apprehending suspected terrorists, the fact remains that they've attempted to cover this up from the very beginning. It's a disgrace.


I think Mr. Blair may have been more involved in this cover up than the Police to be honest, but thats just my sceptical little self...

ITV is the main commercial TV station in the UK. Pretty much all other news stations are reporting this. Look harder next time.I think Berr-and-guns is from this side of the Pond...he is Media Blind. (only can see one media color...US color)

Overall, we should be praising our superb police force on the work that they have done to keep us safe from a third attackWas there a second attack?

I think Berr-and-guns is from this side of the Pond...he is Media Blind. (only can see one media color...US color)
And even that is the pearly-white color of the FOX Network. :rolleyes:

Was there a second attack?
Yeah, but it was a lame effort and people had lost interest so it didn't get as much coverage.

And they arrested a suspect by using a stun gun that time, the rest by non-violent means.

I do agree, like I said, I think lethal force and executions are wrong in all forms.

You know what confuses me? I don't know if it was before or after this shooting, but the police used their "Stun gun" thing on a suspected terrorist. Why couldnt they do that to this guy?
I think they wanted ot make a point- "we will shoot you if you try anything funny"
"Stop" "Armed polBoom!....

"Stop" "Armed polBoom!....
As opposed to... "Suspect is black, I repeat, suspect is black...Get him, boys!" *Ratatatatatatatatatat!* "Sir? Sir, it's happened again!" :(

Sure, but how can a restrained man without a bomb detonate?

the power of positive thinking! yes, you too can detonate bombs through the awesome capabilities of your own subconscious mind! In just 8 simple steps, you will unlock your own hidden mental powers, all for the low low cost of $19.95!

the power of positive thinking! yes, you too can detonate bombs through the awesome capabilities of your own subconscious mind! In just 8 simple steps, you will unlock your own hidden mental powers, all for the low low cost of $19.95!
LMAO! :D

Call now on 1-800-OMFG-DUPED today! while stocks last.

As opposed to... "Suspect is black, I repeat, suspect is black...Get him, boys!" *Ratatatatatatatatatat!* "Sir? Sir, it's happened again!" :(

or as opposed to what happened in this case:

"stop, police!"
"hmm, i wonder what's up?"
*grabbed by undercover cop and pinned down*
*blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam*

the power of positive thinking! yes, you too can detonate bombs through the awesome capabilities of your own subconscious mind! In just 8 simple steps, you will unlock your own hidden mental powers, all for the low low cost of $19.95!
Great. You should be proposed for sainthood. Honestly.

See-through plastic bags, coats and clothing.
Oh wait, then you get done for indecent exposure. Doh!
And here was me thinking it made a good joke.
Freedom Bags (http://www.freedom-bags.com/)

And here was me thinking it made a good joke.
Freedom Bags (http://www.freedom-bags.com/)
LOL, the must-have accessory for all Londoners returning from a sunny holiday! You never know, with that tan!

And here was me thinking it made a good joke.
Freedom Bags (http://www.freedom-bags.com/)
Oh, my...

And here was me thinking it made a good joke.
Freedom Bags (http://www.freedom-bags.com/)

All the more better for thieves to know what they are stealing :p

And here was me thinking it made a good joke.
Freedom Bags (http://www.freedom-bags.com/)
And I moron thougt plastics could be easiely hidden in those giant sized shoes.

Anyway, even if people would run around naked there would be some place to hide plastics. Althrough a quite uncomfortable. So watch out for nudist terroist and welcome to an age of paranoia.

What do the cameras on the underground show? The link mentions photos, etc.. but no CCTV footage? Does anyone know?

Anyway, even if people would run around naked there would be some place to hide plastics. Althrough a quite uncomfortable. So watch out for nudist terroist and welcome to an age of paranoia.
Eeeewww. Reminds me of Man on Fire.

What if he had been carrying a gun in his pocket? What if he had some plastic explosive in his pocket? There's all sorts of ways to blow up a train or kill people if you do it right.
But instead you all whine about the fact he WASN'T doing anything wrong. But if he had, you'd be praising those people who shot him.
Hypocrits.
Oh lord. With your logic the police could shoot every single one of us. We are all potential "What if"s

I'm reading this thread, and what I said earlier seems true: we live in a culture of death, where one life is more important than many lives.

I'm reading this thread, and what I said earlier seems true: we live in a culture of death, where one life is more important than many lives.
Please, by all means enlighten us. Whose life was saved by shooting this man?

What do the cameras on the underground show? The link mentions photos, etc.. but no CCTV footage? Does anyone know?

the impression i got was that the photos were stills from the cctv footage

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1551317,00.html
I'm sure most of you remember that Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian living in London, was shot dead by London police at an underground station, and sadly, was innocent. Now, the details are released.

Now, I'd like to add some commentary here. He was innocent, and that was sad. Should it be investigated independently? Yes, just to make sure. Make sure of what, may you ask? I want to see that the police didn't murder him, or acted far outta conduct.
Otherwise, the police, as far as I can tell, were perfectly in order. He was wearing a heavy jacket in July, jumped a police barricade, and ran from the police when he was stopped. Furthermore, he ran from armed policemen all the way to the train. It sounds reasonable that he was shot.
It is very sad that there are so many people that hate the London police for this. Pope John Paul II, an astute observer of Western society, was fond of saying that we live in a culture of death. We do. The death of several innocent civilians is disregarded, for our minds refuse to comprehend it. The bigger the death toll, the more we choose to ignore it. Yet an incident involving one man is bite size for our primitive brains, and even though he could've potentially killed dozens, it seems even more tragic that he died. The death of thousands of Iraqis is disregarded by the public, but the death of far less Americans is a moral outrage. The death penalty, where it is practiced, is seen as abominal. Nevermind the fact that most of the inmates killed many. Do we feel sorry for them? I am not advocating the death of anyone. I am simply showing what I believe is the irrationality of our thinking. It is almost as if that, in the West, one life is more valuable than many lives.

Maniacal Me, this is from page five. It originally started as my own thread, but was merged into this one.

To everyone here:

To point is not just that it happened, but that they lied about it twice.

#1, Immediately after it happened, they said he was "directly-linked," to the terrorists. (lies)
#2. When that was proven bullshit, they said he was wearing a heavy coat and jumped the ticket-gate. (lies)
#3. When that was proven bullshit... Then, what? (More lies!)

Now for #1, I could understand, because it was immediately after the incident and there was some confusion. But #2 was weeks after the incident, when they'd already questioned the officers involved. It's not just that the man was shot, but that the British police tried to cover it up.

Only because documents were leaked to the press did we hear about this. If those documents weren't leaked, they'd put forth a bullshit investigation, and life would go on as usual.

Any apologists---you can't justify this. You just can't. Call it a "high-stress," situation, but that doesn't explain the police cover-up. Furthermore, what exactly, is a "positive ID of a possible terrorist"? I also find it to be grossly incompetent that the officer outside the Brazilian man's house did not take a photo because he was taking a piss.

You know.

Now I think I know why Northern Ireland wants its independence.

or as opposed to what happened in this case:

"stop, police!"
"hmm, i wonder what's up?"
*grabbed by undercover cop and pinned down*
*blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam blam*

Indeed.

Now I think I know why Northern Ireland wants its independence.
0o

Northern Ireland doesn't want its independence any more than it wants to stay a part of the UK. Is that what Blair would have you believe? Interesting... it seems as though the British media and government is trying to offload us... Anyway, that's another story.

The problem here is not so much the lying itself but the fact that local law enforcement agents thought that the situation justified summary execution without trial and that their superiors wished to protect such a mind-set. If it turns out (through CCTV footage or multiple, separate and agreeing eyewitness accounts) that it was indeed a member of the police that fired the shots on a restrained man with the intent to kill him (you could have shot his leg or arm, you know...) then Manslaughter doesn't cover it. Murder is appropriate. That individual was no threat to anyone while restrained and 11 attempted (at least one lethal) shots shows a definite desire to kill.

Furthermore, in protecting such individuals in the cover-up, they have both been a legal accessory to the murder and shown a desire to prevent anyone from being punished for taking such law into their own hands. "Even if the suspect is harmless, take him down anyway"...

Has anyone entertained the possibility that he might have been assassinated by a member of the group he shared an apartment with? Or is there a very definite scope on who the actual shooter was? It seems as though no officer is to take the blame from the existing statements, and that seems somewhat suspicious...

All those justifying his killing please carry on, I would love to see what you have to say now.


Okay...


I must admit, that is pretty weird.

To everyone here:

To point is not just that it happened, but that they lied about it twice.

#1, Immediately after it happened, they said he was "directly-linked," to the terrorists. (lies)
#2. When that was proven bullshit, they said he was wearing a heavy coat and jumped the ticket-gate. (lies)
#3. When that was proven bullshit... Then, what? (More lies!)

Now for #1, I could understand, because it was immediately after the incident and there was some confusion. But #2 was weeks after the incident, when they'd already questioned the officers involved. It's not just that the man was shot, but that the British police tried to cover it up.

Only because documents were leaked to the press did we hear about this. If those documents weren't leaked, they'd put forth a bullshit investigation, and life would go on as usual.

Any apologists---you can't justify this. You just can't. Call it a "high-stress," situation, but that doesn't explain the police cover-up. Furthermore, what exactly, is a "positive ID of a possible terrorist"? I also find it to be grossly incompetent that the officer outside the Brazilian man's house did not take a photo because he was taking a piss.

You know.

Now I think I know why Northern Ireland wants its independence.


Well said. You make some good points and clearly.

Maybe I'll actually read that liberetarded thread you made earlier now. :p

Kamsaki: He didn't share an apartment with them, he lived in the same building. I believe, he lived on the floor beneath them.

Kamsaki: He didn't share an apartment with them, he lived in the same building. I believe, he lived on the floor beneath them.
Minor issue. He could still have given potentially indictive evidence to the police that might have made him a target for elimination.

Just speculation, of course.

The problem is, if the CCTV footage shows a member of a special police unit carrying out an execution, I cannot see how that is going to see the light of day. There is the disturbing possibility that they may have the power to sabotage the evidence.

Minor issue. He could still have given potentially indictive evidence to the police that might have made him a target for elimination.#1 Color of skin.
#2 Not able to afford a more expensive apartment(flat) complex.

Bottom line:

He was acting like ANYONE ELSE would. If any idiot still supports the actions of the MORONS that shot him, then they're supporting murdering random people. If they support that, let us hope it happens to them.

I assume you are American...

Why? cos you easily dismiss anything not coming from the US media.


Do you have ADD ? because I guess you missed the follow up post where I quoted AND pasted the BBC article AND the post before that had my opinion on the stupidity of the whole situation....but then again maybe your agenda is only to be critical of Americans at any chance you get and these post did not fit your already concieved notions .

#1 Color of skin.
#2 Not able to afford a more expensive apartment(flat) complex.
He doesn't need to be part of the group to know anything. He might just live nearby and happen to have potentially damning testimony. If he knows anything at all, he'd be eliminated.

I'm confused about some issues, I am trying to remain openminded about all of them and I'm shocked about some sweeping statements made here...

1) There were witness statements made on the day (on the hour, within minutes possibly) to media sources that gave statements that are now directly contradicted ("He lept/fell through the doors looking like a fightened rabbit, was pounced upon byt he officers and shot", c.f. "He rose from his seat to see what was going on, was pounced upon by the officers and shot"). As I now have directly contradictory accounts I'm willing to accept either side, but the accounts at the time (even into the first "oh dear, he was wasn't a bomber" period of time) shaped my initial views, so excuse me while I overcome inertia. Same with the clothing, though actual photos (which I haven't seen, save for all-too-brief glimpses of folded front-pages on the racks at a newsagent) make that a definite fact, now.

2) Mistakes were made. This was apparent from the first moment that news reports revealed his innocence, but my opinions of where those mistakes have evolved (from him making a mistake for running to the police on the scene making a mistake at identification through to whatever mistake was made that told the police at the scene that he was the person they had to apprehend. In all likliehood, it's a catalogue of errors, by the police on the ground (at the resolution of the situation), the ones charged with the original stakeout (and possibly the trailing ones, if different yet again and that proves to have a part in the whole situation), the people back at HQ (or wherever) that played parts in the wrong identification/information, allthe places directly involved. With regards to the incident, there were maybe mistakes all over the board, but this particular brand of mistake wasn't made by the senior officers being pointed at now if they weren't actually 'live' in the loop at the time, and the mistake was not with the emotionally termed 'shoot to kill' policy (but more about those two in later points).

3) I sincerely (niaively?) believe that the initial mis-statements (emotively called 'lies') from the senior officers were "facts as they then believed". I can accept them as honest mistakes (or mistakes by those who didn't brief them properly, or tell them what wasn't known), after all, the British Press were straining at their leashes (closelsly followed by the international ones, but our popular press is like rabid dogs) and everyone was wanting to know what happened. As tohow it became a prolonged misinfirmation, depends on whether someone conciously decided to "stick to the original story" or whether the "hang on, there'll be an enquiry, don't pollute the information pool" decision was made before or after the "and, by the way, the facts might be different from what you've said" one. It's possible that people were telling 'the truth' (as they believed it) without knowing The Truth (what actually happened), and then there's an inertia when it takes a very brave person to abandond the old truth when they learn of a new truth that may still not be The Truth and could still be wrong...

And, then again, some people might be maliciously lying, all this needs to be found out, but not a trial-by-tabloid, please... (What am I saying, there already is one. I doubt that even those who aren't at fault, caught up in this, will find it very difficult to recover. But don't ask me who is and isn't at fault...)

4) The Shoot To Kill policy. It is vital that we have that. It is equally vital that it be used properly. It is emphatically vital that when mistakes are made (or nearly made, we never hear about them) then they are learned from. If an officer does not shoot a future (and actually real) suicide bomber before he kills an entire station-worth of people and could have done, then that is a win for the terrorists.

5) Continuing on this, I would never say that the shooting was justified "because it could have saved so many people", in the same way that certain posters extrapolate into insanity and "shoot random people, because you never know". However, at the ground level it was a decision made by a highly trained police unit (from what I know of our SO19 units) and Not. Their. Fault. if their received information was faulty.

6) Shooting N times is not worrying. I'm more worried that they missed for several of those N, but only marginally (because, while my knowledge of guns is limited, I know enough to know that the circumstances weren't conducive to all N shots between the eyes) and know that this is, in part, why N shots were needed. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill or you don't shoot, and that was (wrongly, as it turned out) what was thought to be necessary. Don't get on your high horse about the number of shots. It was many or none. A single shot could have been as bad as it is (killing an innocent) or bad as it could have been (not killing, outright, a suicide bomber who subsequently set himself off).

7) The shooting was not murder. Murder is the premeditated (or occasionally hot-blooded, we don't quite have the same "first degree/second degree" sort of distinction here in the UK) unlawful killing of a person. It was not unlawful if the person who killed was given authority for lethal force (we cannot retrospectively revoke his right to do what he was told to do) I would also baulk at the term 'execution'. In many degrees (state sanctioned termination of life) I would agree, but there are emotional connotations and expectations of "full and due process of law" involving law-lords and the like, not to mention that there is no death penalty (except for some obscure treason-related charges?). Manslaughter does not quite cover it either (not a death precipitated from actions not intended to cause such death). I've a feeling the actual relevant charge may have already been mentioned in another thread, but I forget what.

7a) I can see some people's problems with the "I was only obeying orders" defence, and so am trying not to dignify that defence. My apologies if that interpretation is readable into anything I say through any deficit in my vocabulary/phraseology.

9) Someone, up-thread, mentioned that they could not see how this latest leak, being a police report, could be biased in any way. Can I just mention that should the leak-receiver have obtained a whole bunch of information from the enquiry (or maybe it wasn't, but I wouldn't like to justify any suggestion of a fake beyond broaching the mere possibility), wherein there lies an item 'A' where the police statement is critical/bad for the rep of the force and an item 'B' where it is not (seen together representing a normal distribution of reports clustering around the aforementioned Truth, individually being merely the 'the truth' as seen by each contributor), is not there not an opportunity for the sensation-seeking receiver to only provide 'A' to the public, while the investigating team (with 'A', 'B' and 'C'-'Z' at hand) is professionally and rationally (one would expect) making a less-than-kneejerk-decision.

Or they could be making the decision that the papers are howling about, but I assign a low prabability that the broadsheets (let alone the various flavours of taboid) have all the relevant evidence.

10) [Well, there was a 10, and even 11..15, but I've accidentally posted, rather than previewed, and now realised I've waffled on long enough about minutae... Let us just say that mistakes were made and need to be ensured they never happen again, while not lobotomising our armed response teams, reparations should be made to the family, as with any other death (e.g. by dangerous driving of a response car officer on the way to a shout), the punishment of the officer should be less than for one who causes death by recklessness if he did so under good faith (he will no doubt never hold a gun again, if only because he might hesitate next time he is called to), if the inquiry does not require that he is hung out to dry then the newspapers should not be allowed to do that in the stead of duly appointed authority and... Well, waffling more, even in summary. Let us see what happens in the independant expert commitee currently reveiwing all the evidence. There'll be cries of "coverup" from one camp or "over-reaction" from the other, upon the inquiry's resolution. Or maybe even both at the same time. That'd just be everyone's luck...]

3) I sincerely (niaively?) believe that the initial mis-statements (emotively called 'lies') from the senior officers were "facts as they then believed". I can accept them as honest mistakes (or mistakes by those who didn't brief them properly, or tell them what wasn't known), after all, the British Press were straining at their leashes (closelsly followed by the international ones, but our popular press is like rabid dogs) and everyone was wanting to know what happened. As tohow it became a prolonged misinfirmation, depends on whether someone conciously decided to "stick to the original story" or whether the "hang on, there'll be an enquiry, don't pollute the information pool" decision was made before or after the "and, by the way, the facts might be different from what you've said" one. It's possible that people were telling 'the truth' (as they believed it) without knowing The Truth (what actually happened), and then there's an inertia when it takes a very brave person to abandond the old truth when they learn of a new truth that may still not be The Truth and could still be wrong...
The "mistatements," as you put it, about him jumping the gates and running were made weeks after the event, during a partial investigation. This is after the questioned the police and determined he wasn't a terrorist. Therefore, they weren't misstatements. They were lies. You can't say that, after a partial investigation, that they could unintentionally make SEVERAL claims so outrageously false, and then, quite some time later, have this pop up from an independent source. I think the problem here is, "Belief in a Just World." (http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/justworld/index.shtml) The police commit a terrible, heinous act, then tried to cover it up, but you refuse to believe that there was some kind of evil here, because of the human tendency to believe in a world governed by morality.

And, then again, some people might be maliciously lying, all this needs to be found out, but not a trial-by-tabloid, please... (What am I saying, there already is one. I doubt that even those who aren't at fault, caught up in this, will find it very difficult to recover. But don't ask me who is and isn't at fault...)
It isn't trial by tabloid. We have the facts, so far. They already made several outrageously false claims, with no basis, whatsoever. The misstatements immediately after it happened I can understand, but not weeks after a partial investigation. Don't be naive.

7) The shooting was not murder. Murder is the premeditated (or occasionally hot-blooded, we don't quite have the same "first degree/second degree" sort of distinction here in the UK) unlawful killing of a person. It was not unlawful if the person who killed was given authority for lethal force (we cannot retrospectively revoke his right to do what he was told to do) I would also baulk at the term 'execution'. In many degrees (state sanctioned termination of life) I would agree, but there are emotional connotations and expectations of "full and due process of law" involving law-lords and the like, not to mention that there is no death penalty (except for some obscure treason-related charges?). Manslaughter does not quite cover it either (not a death precipitated from actions not intended to cause such death). I've a feeling the actual relevant charge may have already been mentioned in another thread, but I forget what.
Since you agree, "mistakes were made," because of incompetence, then, you're right. It isn't murder. It is manslaughter. Which is also a crime in the U.K., thanks.

The officers involved should be put on trial for manslaughter and the officers or officials involved with the cover-up should be put on trial for criminal conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

9) Someone, up-thread, mentioned that they could not see how this latest leak, being a police report, could be biased in any way. Can I just mention that should the leak-receiver have obtained a whole bunch of information from the enquiry (or maybe it wasn't, but I wouldn't like to justify any suggestion of a fake beyond broaching the mere possibility), wherein there lies an item 'A' where the police statement is critical/bad for the rep of the force and an item 'B' where it is not (seen together representing a normal distribution of reports clustering around the aforementioned Truth, individually being merely the 'the truth' as seen by each contributor), is not there not an opportunity for the sensation-seeking receiver to only provide 'A' to the public, while the investigating team (with 'A', 'B' and 'C'-'Z' at hand) is professionally and rationally (one would expect) making a less-than-kneejerk-decision.
Thats the problem ...now its a " police report " ..Whats it going to be tomorrow ? The " leaked " documents are PART of an Independent investigation into the shooting...OK ...I dont want PART I would like to see the whole thing so that all the PARTS I read can be taken in the proper context . This is bullshit . This story has been told 14 trillion different ways by 18 million eye witnesses and a blind pidgeon from Guam ...the guy was wearing a tall fat short bulky light jacket with a bomb and leather wires protuding disk forced labor loop to terrorist cells from martian refuge camps that ran at a walk and dodged the police who shot him with a machineshotgunpistol at least 5 to 9 times in the head shoulder and ass after he left a amway meeting of terrorist avon lady cells being watched by the CIAFBIMI16007..scotland yard and a couple gay dudes from up the street .
Let the friggin story reach its final damm version the guy wont be any deader more or less.

It is almost as if that, in the West, one life is more valuable than many lives.
Someone said once, one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic...

Someone said once, one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic...
Joseph Stalin. God, he was no good guy, but he was extremely smart.

He doesn't need to be part of the group to know anything. He might just live nearby and happen to have potentially damning testimony. If he knows anything at all, he'd be eliminated.now in english please...

now in english please...

Um, he might know something about terrorists so he should be executed so that no one else can know what he knows?

:confused:

The cops know thinks about terrorists. Do they have to be shot too? :confused:

Wait: EVERYONE knows something about terrorists... So... If someone knows that terrorists exist...

*BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM*

Hey, folks, terrorists exist! *Signed the death sentence of everyone that read this message* :rolleyes:

Um, he might know something about terrorists so he should be executed so that no one else can know what he knows?
I think you missed the context. I raised the possibility a while back that he may have been shot not by the police but by a proper member of the terrorist Cell somewhere in the crowd because no single officer has claimed that they were the one that fired the shot.

In that case, it's entirely reasonable to see where the motive lay. Not a nice one, but a rational one. He might have had information that the police could use having lived in the same apartment block, so the terrorists could have shot him to cover their tracks once they saw the police were on him.

Dead men tell no tales...

I think you missed the context. I raised the possibility a while back that he may have been shot not by the police but by a proper member of the terrorist Cell somewhere in the crowd because no single officer has claimed that they were the one that fired the shot.


There were eight shots that hit him and someone must haven taken responsibility because the police announced that they sent the murderer (my description) on a free holiday.

In that case, it's entirely reasonable to see where the motive lay. Not a nice one, but a rational one. He might have had information that the police could use having lived in the same apartment block, so the terrorists could have shot him to cover their tracks once they saw the police were on him.

Dead men tell no tales...

Let's not get carried away with the whackjob stories. If it wasn't a cop that killed him, they'd have no reason to have lied about it repeatedly.